Fresh controversy has emerged around President Bola Ahmed Tinubu after the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) confirmed in a sworn court filing that the Nigerian leader was among individuals investigated in connection with drug-trafficking activities in the early 1990s.

The disclosure is contained in a declaration submitted by the FBI on August 28, 2026, before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia as part of an ongoing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking access to records linked to Tinubu.

In the filing, the FBI stated that the records in question were compiled during investigations involving multiple individuals suspected of drug-trafficking offences. The agency further noted that the court had previously determined that there had been an official acknowledgement of an investigation involving Tinubu.

The latest development stems from a landmark ruling delivered in April 2025 by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell. The judge held that the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) could no longer refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records relating to Tinubu under the so-called “Glomar” response.

Judge Howell ruled that the agencies had not provided sufficient legal grounds to keep secret the fact that Tinubu had been the subject of a criminal investigation. She subsequently directed the agencies to process and release non-exempt records requested under the FOIA.

However, the court ruling did not conclude that Tinubu committed any drug-related offence, nor did it establish that he was convicted of a crime.

The records are being sought by American transparency advocate Aaron Greenspan, who filed a series of FOIA requests seeking access to historical documents connected to a heroin-trafficking network that allegedly operated in Chicago during the early 1990s.

Among the materials requested are Tinubu’s complete FBI file and interview records linked to FBI Case No. 245-IP-71386-UUUUUU covering the period between 1992 and 1993.

While the FBI has released portions of the records, the agency continues to withhold certain documents and details, citing exemptions related to personal privacy, confidential informants, investigative methods and information that could endanger individuals if disclosed.

The issue gained renewed attention after Washington-based lobbying firm Von Batten-Montague-York, which is reportedly working for former Vice President Atiku Abubakar ahead of the 2027 presidential election, publicised parts of the FBI declaration.

In a statement posted on its X account, the firm said it was reviewing a large volume of documents obtained from the FBI and releasing portions considered relevant to public interest.

According to the firm, the FBI's sworn declaration contradicts claims that Tinubu was never investigated by American law enforcement authorities.

“The FBI states under oath that the court has already determined that a criminal investigation of Nigerian President Bola Tinubu was officially acknowledged,” the firm stated.

It added that the document was released to challenge assertions that previous efforts to withhold records were solely aimed at protecting Tinubu’s privacy.

Advertisement

The Presidency, however, swiftly rejected the claims and accused political opponents of attempting to manufacture controversy ahead of the 2027 general election.

Special Adviser to the President on Media and Public Communications, Sunday Dare, described the campaign surrounding the FBI records as politically motivated and lacking credible evidence.

According to Dare, the publicity generated around the documents was part of a coordinated effort designed to influence public perception rather than reveal any new facts.

“The coordinated media blitz orchestrated around a Washington, D.C. advisory firm is not an intelligence breakthrough; it is a clinical demonstration of desperation,” he said.

Dare argued that the statements being circulated by the lobbying firm should not be mistaken for the official position of the United States Government, describing them as public relations materials intended to score political points.

He challenged those making allegations against the President to produce concrete evidence supporting their claims, insisting that no credible proof had been presented.

The presidential aide further alleged that publicly available filings under the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) showed that Atiku had retained the services of the lobbying firm under a contract reportedly worth $1.2 million over a 12-month period.

According to him, the arrangement was intended to use historical American judicial records as political ammunition in the build-up to the 2027 presidential election.

Dare also questioned attempts to link Tinubu’s recent foreign travels to the ongoing court proceedings, insisting that the President was merely on a previously scheduled annual leave and that there was no connection between his trip and the FOIA litigation.

He cited comments by Tinubu’s lawyer, Wole Afolabi (SAN), who reportedly argued that portions of the records remained protected under American laws governing confidential investigations and intelligence-gathering methods.

Afolabi also maintained that if Tinubu had committed any offence prosecutable under U.S. law, American authorities would have indicted and prosecuted him at the time.

As the legal battle over the records continues, the controversy has added another dimension to Nigeria’s evolving political landscape ahead of the 2027 elections, with both supporters and critics of the President interpreting the developments through sharply contrasting lenses.

Meanwhile, Tinubu’s legal team has continued to oppose the release of additional records, arguing that further disclosure of personal information contained in government archives would violate his privacy rights.